Rose Law APC

05/17/2026

Ninth Circuit: Severability Clause Does Not Defeat Delegation of Arbitration Validity Questions

When an employee challenges an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, who decides that challenge, a judge or an arbitrator? In Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc., the Ninth Circuit answered that question by enforcing the parties’ delegation clause and sending the dispute to arbitration.

The decision is important for employers using arbitration agreements because it rejects a common argument made against delegation clauses: that a severability clause referring to a “court” creates ambiguity about whether an arbitrator may decide the validity of the arbitration agreement. The Ninth Circuit held it does not.

The Employment Agreement Sent Disputes to Arbitration

Kara Sandler worked for Modernizing Medicine, Inc., also called ModMed.

When an employee challenges an arbitration agreement as unconscionable, who decides that challenge, a judge or an arbitrator? In Sandler v. Modernizing Medicine, Inc., the Ninth Circuit answered that question by enforcing the parties’ delegation clause and sending the dispute to arbitration.

05/17/2026

Ninth Circuit Revives Human Trafficking Claims Against Seafood Importer After Congress Clarifies Civil Liability

When workers allege they were trapped in forced labor overseas, can a United States company face civil liability if it tried, but failed, to profit from the products made under those conditions?

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC answers yes, at least under the court’s interpretation of Congress’s 2022 amendment to the federal civil human trafficking remedy. The decision gives new force to civil claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a), the federal statute allowing trafficking victims to sue not only direct perpetrators, but also those who knowingly benefit from participation in a venture connected to trafficking.

05/17/2026

Ninth Circuit Upholds Hospital’s Denial of Religious Exemptions From COVID-19 Vaccine Policy

When employers receive religious objections to workplace rules, Title VII generally requires them to consider reasonable accommodations. But that obligation has a limit. An employer does not have to grant an accommodation if doing so would create an “undue hardship” for the business.

In Williams v. Legacy Health, the Ninth Circuit addressed how that rule applies in the healthcare setting. The case involved hospital employees who requested religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccine requirement during the Delta variant surge. The employees argued Legacy Health should have accommodated them through measures such as masking, personal protective equipment, or testing instead of vaccination. Legacy argued that allowing unvaccinated frontline healthcare workers to remain in close contact with patients and staff would create unacceptable health, safety, staffing, and operational risks.

When employers receive religious objections to workplace rules, Title VII generally requires them to consider reasonable accommodations. But that obligation has a limit. An employer does not have to grant an accommodation if doing so would create an “undue hardship” for the business.

05/17/2026

When an Appeal Fails Before It Starts: The Record-Citation Lesson from Cardenas v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Employment lawsuits often turn on difficult facts, competing declarations, and disputed legal standards. But sometimes an appeal is decided for a more basic reason: the appellant did not properly show the Court of Appeal where the supporting evidence could be found.

That is what happened in Cardenas v. Los Angeles Unified School District, a May 11, 2026 published decision from the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight. The plaintiffs were 22 Los Angeles Unified School District employees who worked as school safety officers, school police officers, police detectives, or other school security personnel. During the COVID-19 pandemic, LAUSD required vaccinations. The plaintiffs objected on religious grounds and sued the district.

The trial court granted summary judgment against all plaintiffs.

Employment lawsuits often turn on difficult facts, competing declarations, and disputed legal standards. But sometimes an appeal is decided for a more basic reason: the appellant did not properly show the Court of Appeal where the supporting evidence could be found.

05/17/2026

Lost Records, Lost Retirement Credit: Court Revives Public Employee’s CalPERS Lawsuit Against Humboldt County

When public employees earn pension credit, the value of their retirement often depends on records created and maintained decades earlier. A missing employment record may sound like an administrative problem. In Gibbs v. County of Humboldt, the California Court of Appeal treated it as something much more serious: a potential loss of earned retirement benefits.

The case involved Kay Marie Gibbs, a former court reporter who worked for the Humboldt County Superior Court for almost 40 years. As she neared retirement, she discovered a major problem. Although she began working as a court reporter in June 1982 and allegedly became eligible for CalPERS enrollment in December 1983, Humboldt County did not enroll her in CalPERS until November 1989.

When public employees earn pension credit, the value of their retirement often depends on records created and maintained decades earlier. A missing employment record may sound like an administrative problem. In Gibbs v. County of Humboldt, the California Court of Appeal treated it as something much....

05/17/2026

Temporary-Worker Arbitration Agreement Did Not Follow Employee Into Direct Employment, Court Holds

When a company uses temporary workers, it may assume paperwork signed through the staffing agency will continue to protect the company after the worker becomes a direct employee. A recent California Court of Appeal decision shows why that assumption can be risky.

In Toothman v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying Redwood Toxicology Laboratory’s motion to compel arbitration. Redwood tried to rely on an arbitration agreement the employee signed with a temporary staffing agency before Redwood hired him directly. The court held the agreement did not apply to claims arising from the later period of direct employment with Redwood.

From Temporary Assignment to Direct Employment

Robert Toothman was hired in January 2018 by Apex Life Sciences, LLC, a temporary employment agency.

When a company uses temporary workers, it may assume paperwork signed through the staffing agency will continue to protect the company after the worker becomes a direct employee. A recent California Court of Appeal decision shows why that assumption can be risky.

05/17/2026

Court of Appeal Restores Arbitration Award in Correctional Officer Union Retaliation Case

When public employees are disciplined, more than one legal system may be involved. A state civil service agency may decide whether there was cause for discipline. A labor arbitrator may decide whether the discipline also violated a union contract or public-sector labor law. Those questions can overlap, but they are not always the same.

That distinction drove the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Department of Human Resources v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association, filed May 15, 2026. The case involved a correctional officer and union representative who was suspended after posting disciplinary materials on a union bulletin board. The State Personnel Board upheld the discipline. Later, a labor arbitrator found the discipline violated the union contract and the Ralph C. Dills Act because it interfered with protected union activity.

When public employees are disciplined, more than one legal system may be involved. A state civil service agency may decide whether there was cause for discipline. A labor arbitrator may decide whether the discipline also violated a union contract or public-sector labor law. Those questions can overl...

05/17/2026

Professor’s Parody Syllabus Statement Was Protected Speech, Ninth Circuit Holds

Public employers often have broad authority to manage the workplace, respond to complaints, and enforce nondiscrimination policies. Public universities, however, operate in a setting where the First Amendment carries special force. A recent Ninth Circuit decision illustrates the tension between those principles when a professor’s controversial speech causes student outrage and institutional disruption.

In Reges v. Cauce, the Ninth Circuit held the University of Washington violated a professor’s First Amendment rights when it investigated, reprimanded, and threatened discipline over a parody statement he placed in a course syllabus. The case arose from a dispute over an Indigenous land acknowledgment, but the court’s decision is broader than that. It addresses how far a public university may go when a faculty member uses course materials to express a controversial viewpoint on an issue of public concern.

Public employers often have broad authority to manage the workplace, respond to complaints, and enforce nondiscrimination policies. Public universities, however, operate in a setting where the First Amendment carries special force. A recent Ninth Circuit decision illustrates the tension between thos...

05/17/2026

When Freight Brokers Choose Unsafe Trucking Companies: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

A serious truck crash can raise difficult questions about responsibility. The driver may have caused the collision. The trucking company may have hired or supervised the driver. But what about the freight broker that selected the trucking company in the first place?

That was the issue before the United States Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, a case involving the reach of federal trucking deregulation and the continuing role of state safety law. In a unanimous decision issued on May 14, 2026, the Court held that federal law does not categorically bar state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers when the claim concerns motor vehicle safety.

The Crash and the Lawsuit

Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries after his tractor-trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena.

A serious truck crash can raise difficult questions about responsibility. The driver may have caused the collision. The trucking company may have hired or supervised the driver. But what about the freight broker that selected the trucking company in the first place?

05/17/2026

Supreme Court Confirms Federal Courts Can Finish What They Started in Arbitration Cases

When an employment lawsuit is sent to arbitration, the case often does not disappear from federal court. Instead, the court may pause the lawsuit while the parties arbitrate. A new United States Supreme Court decision explains why that pause matters.

In Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, the Supreme Court held a federal court that stays a lawsuit under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act keeps jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the later arbitration award. That remains true even when the later motion to confirm or vacate the award would not independently qualify for federal court jurisdiction on its own.

The decision is important for employees, employers, and lawyers because it clarifies what happens after a federal case is sent to arbitration.

When an employment lawsuit is sent to arbitration, the case often does not disappear from federal court. Instead, the court may pause the lawsuit while the parties arbitrate. A new United States Supreme Court decision explains why that pause matters.